Walkouts, weak deals and COP29 failures

COP29 concluded as a damp squid in Baku, Azerbaijan, early Sunday morning.

The summit, billed as the “Climate Finance COP,” ended with developed nations pledging a paltry $300 billion annually by 2035 to support vulnerable nations in addressing the escalating climate crisis.

This commitment fell significantly short of the $1.3 trillion which economists and experts had called for, which left developing countries a disappointed lot with faint hope.

The summit was expected to focus on climate finance, seen as a cornerstone for addressing the inequities of the climate crisis.

Rich nations, historically responsible for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions, faced mounting pressure to honour their commitments to financially support developing countries.

“We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need,” said Tina Stege, the Marshall Islands’ climate envoy. She described the outcome as reflecting “the very worst of political opportunism.”

Developing nations had demanded a more ambitious figure of $500 billion annually, structured as grants rather than loans, to avoid exacerbating their already dire debt burdens. Instead, wealthy countries cited “economic realities” to justify the $300 billion figure and rejected any binding commitments.

.

Keep Reading

• How rich nations are setting up COP29 to flop

“This is a paltry sum, a mere optical illusion,” India’s representative Chandni Raina declared in a speech after the deal was announced. “It cannot address the enormity of the challenge we all face.”

For Mohamed Ali, Chair of the African Group of Negotiators (AGN), the outcome was a mix of pragmatism and determination. Speaking at the closing plenary, Ali said, “With clear expectations as all other parties, a multilateral process is, by its nature, a convergence of competing priorities and divergent, diverse realities. While not all aspirations are fully reflected in the outcome, we acknowledge the full effort made to balance these dynamics.”

He stressed a call to action that resonated with vulnerable nations: “We are realistic about the journey ahead, but let us remember that these commitments are not acts of charity. They are acts of survival, shared prosperity, and solidarity. Climate finance is not a handout. It is the moral and economic imperative of our age.”

Ali evoked the Southern African concept of Ubuntu.

“I am because we are. When Africa loses, the world loses. When Africa thrives, the world thrives. We reaffirm the principles of the Paris Agreement and the Convention, and we commit ourselves to working with all parties to deliver the commitments made here today. Let us rise together to meet this moment. History will judge us not by what we promised but by what we deliver.”

The gap between the promised $300 billion and the required $1.3 trillion is pronounced. Rich nations' unwillingness to accept their historical responsibility was on full display.

The $100 billion annual pledge made in 2009, initially intended to be delivered by 2020, was only fulfilled in 2022, two years late.

For many, the non-binding nature of these agreements proves a lack of accountability. “Not a single dollar of real climate finance has been provided right now,” said Mohamed Adow, Director of Power Shift Africa. “Rich countries have promised to ‘mobilise’ funds in the future rather than provide them now. The cheque is in the mail, but lives and livelihoods in vulnerable countries are being lost now.”

Rohey John, Gambia’s Minister of Environment, resonated this frustration, calling the delay in financial commitments a deliberate act of climate injustice.

“Developed countries are not only delaying climate justice, but they are also blocking any potential economic progress for continents like Africa because they simply refuse to pay up!” he said.

The negotiations were not without drama. On Saturday, groups representing small island states and least-developed countries staged a walkout, accusing wealthier nations of stalling. By the time talks resumed, the sense of solidarity among vulnerable nations had frayed.

A particularly contentious moment came when Nigeria’s delegation argued that China and India should no longer be classified as developing nations. This move, seen as aligning with developed nations’ attempts to divide the Global South, sparked heated debates and exposed fissures within the bloc of vulnerable nations.

“This COP has shown how developed countries want to shirk their climate finance responsibilities to vulnerable countries,” said John. “It is sad that after months of negotiations, they have waited till the last official day of COP to table a dismal figure, leaving no sufficient time for deliberations amongst parties.”

The presence of 1,770 fossil fuel lobbyists, outnumbering most country delegations, cast a shadow over the talks. CEOs from major oil companies like Aramco, BP, and TotalEnergies were seen engaging with negotiators, sparking outrage among activists.

“This has been the most horrendous climate negotiations in years due to the bad faith of developed countries,” said Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network. “This COP was a fossil fuel lobbyist’s playground.”

Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, openly rejected any references to phasing out fossil fuels. Instead, the summit saw renewed emphasis on carbon markets, geoengineering, and even the promotion of nuclear and fossil gas as “clean energy” pathways. These developments marked a stark departure from the decisions at COP28, where transitioning away from fossil fuels had been a central theme.

Amid the political maneuvering, civil society groups and indigenous activists remained steadfast. They rallied behind the call to “Yasunize the World,” inspired by Ecuador’s decision to halt oil drilling in the Yasuni ITT oil field. Their protests and chants were heard through the halls, a contrast to the fossil fuel executives walking the same corridors.

“Public interest in this COP has been low, and cynicism feels like it has reached an all-time high,” said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London.

China’s new transparency on climate finance helped salvage some progress. The country’s openness to voluntary contributions from the Global South was a rare bright spot. “This should propel China to play a larger role in the future,” said Li Shuo, Director of the China Climate Hub.

Meanwhile, the European Union sought to mediate between developed and developing nations, but their efforts were undermined by persistent resistance from wealthier countries unwilling to scale up their contributions.

Brazil’s President,  Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has already set the stage for COP30 in Belém, calling it the “turnaround COP.” He explained  the need for a fair, fast, and funded transition away from fossil fuels and stronger commitments to protect forests.

“There is still much more to do,” said Simon Stiell, head of the UNFCCC. “This new finance goal is an insurance policy for humanity, but like any insurance, it only works if the premiums are paid in full and on time.”

While some viewed the $300 billion pledge as a starting point, others saw it as a betrayal. “The outcome offers false hope to those already bearing the brunt of climate disasters,” said Harjeet Singh of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative.

For many vulnerable nations, the fight continues. Sierra Leone’s Minister of Environment, Jiwoh Abdulai, summarized the sentiment: “This COP, against the wishes of vulnerable countries, has adopted a $300 billion target—less than a quarter of what science shows is needed. This deal is too little, too late.”